quote:
JooJooFlop was listening to Cher while typing:
No, but you can probably attatch a scope to a hunting rifle and pretend various furry woodland creatures are terrorists.Assuming that hunting rifles are accurate enough to snipe with anyways. Even then, it would kinda cheapen the hunt, wouldn't it?
There's really no such thing as a "sniper rifle"; most of them started their lives as hunting rifles.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Koosh Man:
There's really no such thing as a "sniper rifle"; most of them started their lives as hunting rifles.
Liar.
Tell these people the truth.
There is no such thing as a hunting rifle. Those brave souls that venture into the wilderness to kill off helpless forest animals are HEROES! They kill off the terrorist scum that hides in the bushes and grass of our glorious nation!
Those wild rabbits and their beady eyes... those big-ass deer, and their malicious glare... those giant bears and their colossal strength... you know all of them are communist scum conspiring to bring us down from within.
THE RABBITS ARE PLANNING A MILITARY COUP! YOU'VE GOT TO LISTEN TO ME BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!
quote:
Koosh Man wrote this stupid crap:
There's really no such thing as a "sniper rifle"; most of them started their lives as hunting rifles.
I'm sure there are some that were created specificly for sniping.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
The right to bear arms has never been in danger. This is something a lot of advocates fail to remmeber.The inability to bear certain TYPES of firearms, doesn't not remove the right to bear arms at all. Limitations and restrictions such as background checks, waiting periods, etc etc, also do not remove the right to bear arms because those who would be denied the right to gain a weapon because of these restrictions already violated the American trust in one way or another.
The right to bear arms isn't an issue. The right to bear unnessary, and limited amounts of arms does not violate this right.
Many handguns, many types of rifles, all forms of bows, and various other arms are still available even under gun control acts.
THis is the most Back aswards way of thinking I have ever seen. It is like saying that the right to free speech only applies if we yell, use an old printing press, or hand write something. you CAN NOT limit something that is gaurenteed in the constitution. The point of the 2nd amendment was to give the people the ability to keep the goverment in check and overthrow it if the need ever arose. Now2 you can't do that with a .32 reolver and a Marlin .22 Rifle.
And who makes these limits? The answer to that is simple. the peole who are making these limits are the very people who the consitution was put into place to protect us from.
If you don't like the way it is them move to Austrailia or the UK and be under constant video survailance.
You want the bottom line. Then here it is. (This was wrote a while back in reply to something else and isn't directed at anyone specificly here)
Me and MILLIONS of other Americans own Firearms. They range from .22 rifles to AR15s, to Barrett .50 callier rifles and more types of pistols than I could begin to list.. We like them. We have fun with them.. They are a way for us to protect ourselves from criminals and tyrants. If you want them you can have them after I am dead and you manage to pry it out of my hand. Untill then shut the hell up and move to a nice oppresive goverment where people who think like you belong.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Robocop:
THis is the most Back aswards way of thinking I have ever seen. It is like saying that the right to free speech only applies if we yell, use an old printing press, or hand write something. you CAN NOT limit something that is gaurenteed in the constitution. The point of the 2nd amendment was to give the people the ability to keep the goverment in check and overthrow it if the need ever arose. Now2 you can't do that with a .32 reolver and a Marlin .22 Rifle.And who makes these limits? The answer to that is simple. the peole who are making these limits are the very people who the consitution was put into place to protect us from.
If you don't like the way it is them move to Austrailia or the UK and be under constant video survailance.
You want the bottom line. Then here it is. (This was wrote a while back in reply to something else and isn't directed at anyone specificly here)
Me and MILLIONS of other Americans own Firearms. They range from .22 rifles to AR15s, to Barrett .50 callier rifles and more types of pistols than I could begin to list.. We like them. We have fun with them.. They are a way for us to protect ourselves from criminals and tyrants. If you want them you can have them after I am dead and you manage to pry it out of my hand. Untill then shut the hell up and move to a nice oppresive goverment where people who think like you belong.
If they need an AR15 to protect themselves from the criminal elements, and some paranoid fear of tyrany, paranoia which was claimed as being negated by HAVING a firearm in the first place, then there are other inadequcies in thier lives that need to be addressed first. 
Oh, and these 'limits' are placed by the people. Based purely on the fact that the people vote for thier representatives based on who best supports their views, and can best reflect them in the governemental arena. Hence why the government is subjegated to popular opinion polls, and how officals can be voted out of office or removed. Also reflected by the fact the governement has seperate power institutions, instead of centralized control.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about (_|_):
THis is the most Back aswards way of thinking I have ever seen. It is like saying that the right to free speech only applies if we yell, use an old printing press, or hand write something. you CAN NOT limit something that is gaurenteed in the constitution. The point of the 2nd amendment was to give the people the ability to keep the goverment in check and overthrow it if the need ever arose. Now2 you can't do that with a .32 reolver and a Marlin .22 Rifle.
So should any citizen in the U.S. be able to own nuclear weapons?
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Punky Brewster:
If they need an AR15 to protect themselves from the criminal elements, and some paranoid fear of tyrany, paranoia which was claimed as being negated by HAVING a firearm in the first place, then there are other inadequcies in thier lives that need to be addressed first.Oh, and these 'limits' are placed by the people. Based purely on the fact that the people vote for thier representatives based on who best supports their views, and can best reflect them in the governemental arena. Hence why the government is subjegated to popular opinion polls, and how officals can be voted out of office or removed. Also reflected by the fact the governement has seperate power institutions, instead of centralized control.
I guess we should only be able to own what we NEED and no more.
Move out of that three bedroom house because you only need one. Better turn in that car that can do 120mph because the speed limit is only 65 and you don't NEED a car that goes faster.
And the fact is that in opinion poles and everywhere else people are agreeing more with my point of view than with yours. With the exception of a few high population areas, the nation is tired of it. theya re tired of the lies, they are tired of the BS. But if you really think that all the regulations in the world are enough to keep a goverment in check over the longrun, then you need to go back and retake some history classes. Do I think that the goverment is going to turn on us tomorrow and turn us into subjects? No. Do I think it will happen some day? Yes I hate to say it but I do. Clinton would have loved it. Gore would put us farther down that road. And people like Diane Finestien would absolutly be in heaven if they could find a way to be in a permenant position of power over others like that. As someone who is working in politics I have no doubt to the question whether they can be trusted or not. The answer is a resonding NO!
If you thnk otherwise then you are a fool.
quote:
Zair had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
So should any citizen in the U.S. be able to own nuclear weapons?
There is a very wide Gap between a firearm and a Weapon of mass Distruction.
quote:
Azizza wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
There is a very wide Gap between a firearm and a Weapon of mass Distruction.
There is a very wide gap between a handgun and an assault rifle. Who the fuck needs an assault rifle against a common criminal or mugger? (Assault rifle is just one example, btw.)
And we want assault rifles for the same reason people want cars that go 120 MPH.
They're fun. 
quote:
Azizza impressed everyone with:
There is a very wide Gap between a firearm and a Weapon of mass Distruction.
What about Artillery, Combat Aircraft, Flamethrowers, Cruise Missiles, etc?
You won't overthrow a Tyrant with only small arms, but you aren't going to do it with a bunch of machine guns either.
quote:
Praetor Liam had this to say about Knight Rider:
There is a very wide gap between a handgun and an assault rifle. Who the fuck needs an assault rifle against a common criminal or mugger? (Assault rifle is just one example, btw.)
Ok I want you to list the defining Characteristics of an "Assault weapon" and tell me what makes them so dangerouse compared to a "normal rifle" or a pistol.
That aside I have already said many times that the 2nd Amendment isn't based on simply the defense of ones self from a criminal. More than anything else it is about the Defense of ones self against a corrupt and out of control goverment.
quote:
Koosh Man had this to say about dark elf butts:
Who uses flamethrowers anymore?
Ok, bad example. 
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Ok I want you to list the defining Characteristics of an "Assault weapon" and tell me what makes them so dangerouse compared to a "normal rifle" or a pistol.That aside I have already said many times that the 2nd Amendment isn't based on simply the defense of ones self from a criminal. More than anything else it is about the Defense of ones self against a corrupt and out of control goverment.
Assault rifle's have been used as an example a but much on this thread, what I'm saying we don't need is teflon coated bullets that are made specifically to pierce kevlar vests. I don't see many burglars or deer wearing kevlar, so that only leaves the police to use those bullets on. Case in point:
My mom's ex-husband Roger was called out to an old apartment building last year, it seems some guy hadn't been paying his rent for the last four months. The landlord asked for his money, but all he got back was threats about being shot. He called an officer to get this guy out, the officer, hearing that there was a gun threat, put on some kevlar. He walks up to the door and knocks, no response. The cop calls for back up, and goes to knock on the door again. So, Roger and his partner were called out to oversee the whole thing. After the third session of knocking, bullets ripped through the door and knocked the officer down. A few minutes later Roger shows up with his partner. (both wearing kevlar) They see the officer lying face down in front of the door, and run up to him. Shots are fired through the door, and Roger's partner is hit, dragging his partner in front of him, and he slings the original officer on his back. As he's running away from the door, Roger told me later that he could feel the impact from the shots being fired through the door hitting the guy behind him. It took three layers of kevlar and a body to stop those bullets, and they were sold legally to this guy that had never had a criminal record.
And of course you'll feel the impact. You, and the guy you're carrying, and the door, are being hit with a projectile traveling at supersonic speeds. Feeling the impact has absolutely nothing to do with teflon coating on your bullets.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris said this about your mom:
It's not 1776 anymore.
Yes and invasions and wars and things like that don't happen in 2002 right?
quote:
Gevarien / Modrakien attempted to be funny by writing:
What about Artillery, Combat Aircraft, Flamethrowers, Cruise Missiles, etc?
Now here's a question I want to see answered. Where exactly is the line between something that should be allowed and something that shouldn't? We've got two goal posts already:
Handguns: Yes
Nuclear Weapons: No
What about all the stuff in the middle?
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Robocop:
Now here's a question I want to see answered. Where exactly is the line between something that should be allowed and something that shouldn't? We've got two goal posts already:Handguns: Yes
Nuclear Weapons: NoWhat about all the stuff in the middle?
WTF, you idiot, everyone should have a tactical nuclear device incase a rogue criminal comes armed with a tank or a small army or something. Maybe even a handgun.
Get your head straight.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Azizza!
That aside I have already said many times that the 2nd Amendment isn't based on simply the defense of ones self from a criminal. More than anything else it is about the Defense of ones self against a corrupt and out of control goverment.
I think you're misinterpreting this. The Second Amendment is about self-defense, because, no matter how much the founding fathers liked Locke, no government is going to set itself up for eventual otherthrow. It makes no sense.
While I can't remember specific names at the moment, there are numerous instances of federal troops breaking up small rebellious groups. And, as Bloodsage pointed out, there's the little matter of the Civil War.
What you seem to consider having a ready defense against corruption would, if adopted by enough people, ultimately cripple the government's authority. Any policy that could offend a large number of people - something as necessary as a tax increase, for example - would be risking armed overthrow attempts.
Citing hypothetical abuses of power by past leaders doesn't work either. It doesn't justify the stance that corruption might occur and might have to be dealt with by violence. [ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: MorbId ]
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Where exactly is the line between something that should be allowed and something that shouldn't?
I've always said Yes to sub-machine guns, and No to full-fledged assault rifles.
Just seems a bit over the top.
I also think that we should have a gun-ownership system like the one enstated in Switzerland, though.
I'm sure any "evil baby-eating terrorist group" has someone that can make explosives for them.
It took people about a day to see that as pure Bullshit.
Which of the following would a terrorist do if he wanted a Fully automatic Weapon.
1: Buy a ticket to the US. Go to a Gun show where there are police all over the place. Use a couple hundred dollars worth of false ID to buy the Semi-Automatic Version of the gun for about 800-1k and then fill out 20 minutes worth of Paperwork per gun. Then spend more time and money on each gun to convert it to Full automatic and take a chance on damaging the gun. Then go to the trouble and cost to smuggle it out of the country.
OR!!
2: Go to one of the hundreds if not thousands of small shack Gun Dealers selling one of the MILLIONS of AK47/74s already on the market, and spend less thank 75usd per weapon.
The same would go for any other type of weapon. Most people who talk about weapons and how "easy" they are to get, know NOTHING about the topic.
quote:
MorbId stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
I think you're misinterpreting this. The Second Amendment is about self-defense, because, no matter how much the founding fathers liked Locke, no government is going to set itself up for eventual otherthrow. It makes no sense.While I can't remember specific names at the moment, there are numerous instances of federal troops breaking up small rebellious groups. And, as Bloodsage pointed out, there's the little matter of the Civil War.
What you seem to consider having a ready defense against corruption would, if adopted by enough people, ultimately cripple the government's authority. Any policy that could offend a large number of people - something as necessary as a tax increase, for example - would be risking armed overthrow attempts.
Citing hypothetical abuses of power by past leaders doesn't work either. It doesn't justify the stance that corruption might occur and might have to be dealt with by violence.
Thomas Jefferson originally suggested the second amendment to protect the people from the Goverment, if needed.
Read some history, boy!
quote:
nem-x had this to say about John Romero:
http://www.tidal-w.com/prevew/spawn/spawn22/valkerie.jpg
Woah!!! More plz!
quote:
¤Delidgamond¤ thought about the meaning of life:
I could so kick her ass
As you're writhing on the ground in your death throes, maybe, doubt you'd do much damage in that case. I kid, I kid! /Triumph
quote:
Verily, Azizza doth proclaim:
I guess we should only be able to own what we NEED and no more.
Move out of that three bedroom house because you only need one. Better turn in that car that can do 120mph because the speed limit is only 65 and you don't NEED a car that goes faster.
Ummm.. Okay...
Driving and vehicular transportation is a living nessesity, it can't even fall into this comparison.. But even if you did take it there, lets look at it.
From a technical standpoint, the cost, to the consumer, in order to downgrade an engine that tops out at 65 is huge concidering the design of internal combustion, (ALso negating that the legale speed limit in most places around Texas is 70 anyway) that that ideal is purely pointless. And again, you NEED to drive, you don't NEED to shoot a gun.
Also, ability to drive is age restricted. In addition to the fact you must train and practice, it requires study, and the ability to pass a test, AND it requires a licence in order to operate. Then take into account the penalties when on the road as well. Abuse of your vehicle has many penalties, and in extreme cases can lead to suspension of licence, imprisionment, and many other hefty incursions... Flawed comparison.
And by account of many of your statements you are bordering on condoneing political assasination for opposing views and an implied misuse of power and authority. So in a lot of ways you border on resembling an anarchist. And if you support political assasination for people who feel political officials hold too much control and are abusing uses of office.. Well, I'm armed.. What office were you running for again?
And geez man, lay off the racial/location condesension.. "From whatever 3rd world hell hole they come from?" Way to come across as a decent respectable political figure.
quote:
This one time, at Drysart camp:
Now here's a question I want to see answered. Where exactly is the line between something that should be allowed and something that shouldn't? We've got two goal posts already:Handguns: Yes
Nuclear Weapons: NoWhat about all the stuff in the middle?
Area of effect lethal weapons (explosives): Bad
Full auto: Bad
Semi auto: Acceptable
Able to shoot half way through a big deer: Acceptable
Able to shoot half way through a school building: Bad
Area of effect non-leathal weapons (tear gas): Acceptable
Stunners/stun guns: Acceptable
Just some vauge ideas on guidelines.
oh, and just as an addendum: tear gas, in the hands of normal citizens, would be just as dangerous, if not moreso, than fully automatic weapons. [ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: Koosh Man ]
quote:
Azizza stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
If you don't like the way it is them move to Austrailia or the UK and be under constant video survailance.
Australia. And check your sources, because you're full of shit.
quote:
Koosh Man was naked while typing this:
so why's full auto bad again? The average joe blow would get two shots off where he's aiming and the rest would pelt low-flying planes.
Because people tend to want full auto ONLY for doing Bad Things. Hunters don't need it. It doesn't really help for self defence. But any jerkweed out to prove what a badass he is by blowing away a bunch of WalMart shoppers with his balistic penis extension will want full auto.
For a normal person, it serves no good use. For an abnormal person, it meshes well with the desire for bad use.
It's like a Formula One racer. It may be impressive as hell, but it's crap-all worthless for day to day use, and best kept off the streets.
[Edit]As for tear gas, you may have a point. But, it's not as sudden as being shot, there's more of a chance to get away. Still, while I am willing to see people allowed to have it, I would prefer that they not be anywhere near me. [ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: Palador ChibiDragon ]
